Is it okay to not receive the Eucharist?

[Zenkai]

]19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

Really, the piano is forbidden?

How binding are these documents? I hear the piano commonly during Mass.

EDIT: I see that that document is pre-Vatican II. Did Vatican II change music practices at all?

 

[markomalley]

Really, the piano is forbidden?

How binding are these documents? I hear the piano commonly during Mass.

EDIT: I see that that document is pre-Vatican II. Did Vatican II change music practices at all?

Well, Sacrosanctum Concilium did say, *But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority
*
So if the “competent territorial authority” (I read that as the bishop or religious superior) allows it, then he allows it. I agree that I hear the piano a whole lot in most parishes where I’ve attended Mass.

Having said that, you should pay particular attention to the fact that in all 3 of them, the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem. This does not mean (as I’ve heard a lot of music directors say) “We do hold it in high esteem. We esteem it so much that we only rarely use it, because it should be ‘special’”. It means that we should prefer its use.

The other thing to note (elsewhere in all 3 of the documents) is that there should be a high level of preference for Gregorian Chant.

Yet how many parishes even have a schola? How many of them would even have the capability of doing this?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to suggest that all modern music be done away with, but how many people in how many parishes never have the blessing of hearing any chant? (Even for prayers where it would be highly appropriate, like the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Pater Noster, and the Agnus Dei – prayers that are part of the Ordinary of the Mass… )

Don’t get me wrong, beautiful orchestral music (and, as you’ve demonstrated, a sax can be an integral component of that) can be absolutely beautiful. Most of the premier composers from the baroque, classical, and romantic music periods have wonderful Masses composed…that could be easily adapted to fit the Novus Ordo…

But the standard fallback position should point more toward the Graduale, not toward the pedestrian banal tripe put out by Haugen, Haas, and their ilk.



I’m sure playing fine music would be far more satisfying for you as a musician, as well.

(/rant off)

 

[POJIUJH]

Did you listen to the Glazunov Alto Saxophone Concerto?

What instruments can you picture being used during Mass, besides organ and piano?

I did, and I agree it is certainly beautiful. I can’t picture any others but organ or straight Gregorian chant. That isn’t to say I haven’t heard other instruments, unfortunately I have, but the purpose of music in the Mass is meant to draw attention to God while also reminding people like me, that I cannot grasp the immensity of what is happening. God Himself becoming physically present to us, transcending time in such a way that what the priest holds before us in the present is the flesh of Christ hanging on the Cross 2000 years ago. Words can’t carry the awesomeness of this! Music is often more expressive than words, and that is what sacred music has always tried to inspire, Holy fear and awe! Chant and organ do this so well, and they don’t distract our prayers, they are like music that takes a second seat and gives the first to God, like holy ambiance, it draws attention to something else, holiness, God.

Sharp sounds tend to have the effect of distraction and attention to itself. I don’t know much about saxophone, I’m just not sure if it can be proper to the true meaning of the Mass.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Gotta say as a music major, some of the outdated requirements are almost laughable. For example, organ is held in high esteem, but not the “noisy” piano. Umm, don’t get me wrong, I love organ, but it is louder than a piano.

Also, I believe the Modern Church says that music can fit the cultural norms of an area. Using a saxophone tastefully can easily fall under the “cultural norm” in America.

 

[POJIUJH]

Gotta say as a music major, some of the outdated requirements are almost laughable. For example, organ is held in high esteem, but not the “noisy” piano. Umm, don’t get me wrong, I love organ, but it is louder than a piano.

Also, I believe the Modern Church says that music can fit the cultural norms of an area. Using a saxophone tastefully can easily fall under the “cultural norm” in America.

It isn’t the volume that’s taken into account. Yes, it does say that music can fit the cultural norms of an area, not that it should. Certain cultures ways of reverence can only be done in certain ways (see Cardinal Arinze’s talks) but that doesn’t mean that culture can be an excuse to do whatever we want. Fiddles, bodhráns, whistles or uilleann pipes were never allowed during Mass here in Ireland, nor did we ever even think of it. Yet Irish patterns of singing, or sacred hymns in gaelige is what reflects our culture best, reverently.

I also wouldn’t also get into a habit of putting a capital M in modern when referring to the Church, you don’t want to be associated with a sect.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

It isn’t the volume that’s taken into account. Yes, it does say that music can fit the cultural norms of an area, not that it should. Certain cultures ways of reverence can only be done in certain ways (see Cardinal Arinze’s talks) but that doesn’t mean that culture can be an excuse to do whatever we want. Fiddles, bodhráns, whistles or uilleann pipes were never allowed during Mass here in Ireland, nor did we ever even think of it. Yet Irish patterns of singing, or sacred hymns in gaelige is what reflects our culture best, reverently.

I also wouldn’t also get into a habit of putting a capital M in modern when referring to the Church, you don’t want to be associated with a sect.

I’m talking very specifically of piano versus organ.

 

[POJIUJH]

I’m talking very specifically of piano versus organ.

I’m sorry I don’t quite understand how saying that correlates with your last post.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Gotta say as a music major, some of the outdated requirements are almost laughable.** For example, organ is held in high esteem, but not the “noisy” piano. Umm, don’t get me wrong, I love organ, but it is louder than a piano.
**
Also, I believe the Modern Church says that music can fit the cultural norms of an area. Using a saxophone tastefully can easily fall under the “cultural norm” in America.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Remember those documents I referenced upthread?

The one by Pope St Pius X says the following:

VI. Organ and instruments

1. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.
2. As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it.
3. It is not permitted to have the chant preceded by long preludes or to interrupt it with intermezzo pieces.

18. The sound of the organ as an accompaniment to the chant in preludes, interludes, and the like must be not only governed by the special nature of the instrument, but must participate in all the qualities proper to sacred music as above enumerated.

19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

1. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.
   

   	21. In  processions outside the church the Ordinary may give permission for a  band, provided no profane pieces be executed. It would be desirable in  such cases that the band confine itself to accompanying some spiritual  canticle sung in Latin or in the vernacular by the singers and the pious  associations which take part in the procession.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, on the other hand, said this:
120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.
Pope Bl. John Paul II’s chirograph, also referenced above, said this:

1. Again at the practical level, the Motu Proprio whose centenary it is also deals with the question of the musical instruments to be used in the Latin Liturgy. Among these, it recognizes without hesitation the prevalence of the pipe organ and establishes appropriate norms for its use[42]. The Second Vatican Council fully accepted my holy Predecessor’s approach, decreeing: “The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendour to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up people’s minds to God and to higher things”[43].

Nonetheless, it should be noted that contemporary compositions often use a diversity of musical forms that have a certain dignity of their own. To the extent that they are helpful to the prayer of the Church they can prove a precious enrichment. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that instruments are suitable for sacred use, that they are fitting for the dignity of the Church and can accompany the singing of the faithful and serve to edify them.

That’s why I commended them to you…there is a whole lot of teaching crammed into those three documents.

 

[Elizium23]

That document keeps being trotted out to claim that pianos are forbidden, but the existence of many a piano in many a cathedral fails to bear out an authentic interpretation. What has happened is that more recent liturgical law has superseded the proscriptions in that old thing. Sacrosanctum Concilium has already been quoted, and I think there is a more definitive one that I saw in another thread; I can’t find anything in GIRM, but basically, any instrument that is OK with the bishop or other competent authority is OK for the Church. There is no “List of Forbidden Instruments” just as much as there is no “List of Forbidden Books” any more.

It is certainly still within the competence of episcopal authority to make such lists, although they are local in nature and not universal for the Latin Church. And a pastor can forbid anything he wants in this respect. We used to have a four-piece electric band until our pastor put down his foot and said “NO DRUMS!” The piano stayed, but eventually we got rid of the mechanism that let it play by itself under MIDI control - never used - and slowly we were jettisoning OCP and GIA in favor of the Adoremus Hymnal and chanted propers from the Lumen Christi Missal, but then we had a change in music directors, which took us on a giant leap back to the past and nothing but OCP again…

 

[Wildkit]

I might suggest you have the choir director speak to your priest about receiving the Eucharist privately after mass. This is exactly what we did at the Paulist Choir where it was awkward to move to the communion rails from our seats in an orderly way, a priest would distribute the Eucharist in the Chapel after every mass. I would ask if arrangements along those lines could be made.

 

[markomalley]

That document keeps being trotted out to claim that pianos are forbidden, but the existence of many a piano in many a cathedral fails to bear out an authentic interpretation. What has happened is that more recent liturgical law has superseded the proscriptions in that old thing. Sacrosanctum Concilium has already been quoted, and I think there is a more definitive one that I saw in another thread; I can’t find anything in GIRM, but basically, any instrument that is OK with the bishop or other competent authority is OK for the Church. There is no “List of Forbidden Instruments” just as much as there is no “List of Forbidden Books” any more.

It is certainly still within the competence of episcopal authority to make such lists, although they are local in nature and not universal for the Latin Church. And a pastor can forbid anything he wants in this respect. We used to have a four-piece electric band until our pastor put down his foot and said “NO DRUMS!” The piano stayed, but eventually we got rid of the mechanism that let it play by itself under MIDI control - never used - and slowly we were jettisoning OCP and GIA in favor of the Adoremus Hymnal and chanted propers from the Lumen Christi Missal, but then we had a change in music directors, which took us on a giant leap back to the past and nothing but OCP again…

The piano was, at the time, associated with the ordinary, pedestrian show tunes associated with secular entertainment. All 3 documents I quoted children’s the pipe organ as the preferred instrument for accompaniment (the most recent document was from 2003, so it’s hardly old)

Also, both SC and JPII’s document validated Pius X’s Motu Proprio, so you can’t just cast it aside.

Having said that, I think the issue is to get away from the banal. Maybe the modern equivalent would be a prohibition on Heavy Metal bands accompanying a cantor. Or maybe a moratorium on Haugen and Haas jingles (I know, only in my wildest fantasies)

 

[Elizium23]

If that provision of the motu proprio is still valid, then there should be a whole raft of bishops who have issued directives forbidding pianos in their dioceses, because the things are so common otherwise. I’d like to see the decrees. I have seen the pianos.

I would settle for a reputable claim from someone whose diocese was completely free of pianos.

 

[POJIUJH]

WingsOfEagles:
It seems I’ve forgotten how to speak English as I just can’t work out what you want to say.

You said you were “talking very specifically of piano versus organ”. You didn’t speak very specifically, you just took “loud” to mean volume alone where it could be better understood as “distracting”. A choir can be louder than a piano and sharp instruments like whistles can be played pretty quietly afterall.

 

[Zenkai]

Sharp sounds tend to have the effect of distraction and attention to itself. I don’t know much about saxophone, I’m just not sure if it can be proper to the true meaning of the Mass.

The classical saxophone tone does not sound “sharp” to me. The classical tone sounds pretty round to my ear… The jazz tone, however, sounds “sharp”. Perhaps the trumpet, oboe, and violin sound “sharp”?

And here is a classical saxophone quartet (soprano saxophone, alto saxophone, tenor saxophone, and baritone saxophone) youtube.com/watch?v=sel9Dv-2kHk

Do you find this “sharp”?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

It seems I’ve forgotten how to speak English as I just can’t work out what you want to say.

You said you were “talking very specifically of piano versus organ”. You didn’t speak very specifically, you just took “loud” to mean volume alone where it could be better understood as “distracting”. A choir can be louder than a piano and sharp instruments like whistles can be played pretty quietly afterall.

Yes, loud could also mean distracting, but do you truly believe that a piano is more distracting than an organ? (plus the original document wording was noisy/frivolous). Piano and organ are both keyboard instruments, so I find it odd to say that one is okay and one isn’t. The timbre of a piano is different than an organ because the hammers hit steel strings versus air moving through pipes with the organ. I like organ, but I think it’s arguably more distracting than a piano; the reason it is arguably more distracting is because it produces a greater volume than a piano. What I meant when I wrote that I was speaking specifically of piano versus organ is that I was not arguing that percussion, various wind instruments, etc. should all be fine to use.

Also, I’m not sure if you’re looking for a fight or not, but it seems in more than one post as if you’re trying to be rude on purpose. If that’s not what you intended, then I would be careful in trying to be humorous on the internet.

 

[Mike30]

I would say that the thread has been pretty much derailed by the which musical instruments are allowed or superior crowd.:tsktsk:

In answer to the OP’s question yes, it is Ok not to receive Holy Communion at Mass, even if at times it looks like everybody receives all the time.

 

[POJIUJH]

Yes, loud could also mean distracting, but do you truly believe that a piano is more distracting than an organ? (plus the original document wording was noisy/frivolous). Piano and organ are both keyboard instruments, so I find it odd to say that one is okay and one isn’t. The timbre of a piano is different than an organ because the hammers hit steel strings versus air moving through pipes with the organ. I like organ, but I think it’s arguably more distracting than a piano; the reason it is arguably more distracting is because it produces a greater volume than a piano. What I meant when I wrote that I was speaking specifically of piano versus organ is that I was not arguing that percussion, various wind instruments, etc. should all be fine to use.

Also, I’m not sure if you’re looking for a fight or not, but it seems in more than one post as if you’re trying to be rude on purpose. If that’s not what you intended, then I would be careful in trying to be humorous on the internet.

It seems most people interpret anything directed to them on the internet as confrontational

Yes, I do find piano much more distracting. Don’t ask me for specifics, as I said I’m not a very trained ear, but it’s warmer (even though sometimes shrill) sound and constant (I don’t know a word to describe this, as opposed to sharp piano notes) do a better job of adding emphasis to something or inspiring awe. Constant notes mean ambiance, solely shrill, fast notes mean attention.

If you think I’m having a go at you, you would be damn right. You are accusing Pope St Pius X of being some kind of idiot who wouldn’t put the slightest bit of thought into his writings, meanwhile you interpret what he says in an intentionally and unnecessarily strict way. A certain heretic group may very well associate themselves with him, but he is a pope and a saint, and you will respect him as such.

You mentioned cultural norms, my reply was to explain the proper use of cultural norms. You were able to notice that, you are only trying to draw my own reply out of context to take attention away from your own blooper. Be honest and sincere. If you have some form of aversion to St Pius, admit it. If you make a mistake in interpreting something wrongly, admit it also instead of dragging it out into a stupid argument.

For the sake of my blood pressure I am unsubscribing to your replies.

 

[POJIUJH]

The classical saxophone tone does not sound “sharp” to me. The classical tone sounds pretty round to my ear… The jazz tone, however, sounds “sharp”. Perhaps the trumpet, oboe, and violin sound “sharp”?

And here is a classical saxophone quartet (soprano saxophone, alto saxophone, tenor saxophone, and baritone saxophone) youtube.com/watch?v=sel9Dv-2kHk

Do you find this “sharp”?

Jazz tone is definitely sharp. That, not so much. I’m not saying that it can’t be a possibility, I would just need to see it done before my suspicions could be dropped. Violin is certainly sharp, outside of orchestra. When I picture Christ returning, I picture choirs of angels and blaring trumpets. Trumpets, because if I was to hear one unusually during my day I would assume it to be an announcement of someone or something. They have that effect. A king was proclaimed by trumpet because it made him look triumphant, stately and strong. The sound takes a second place to increase the first place. It is fitting that our music should serve to announce in majesty and reverence, God.

It’s because of trumpets that I haven’t condemned saxaphone yet, I’m just not experienced with the instrument to be able to say if it can be done. Any music which draws attention to a majesty, should be used for worship of God at the Mass. Any music that draws attention to its own sound, character or qualities, although beautiful, has to be left for other uses. This is certainly the mindset of the Church throughout the centuries.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

It seems most people interpret anything directed to them on the internet as confrontational

Yes, I do find piano much more distracting. Don’t ask me for specifics, as I said I’m not a very trained ear, but it’s warmer (even though sometimes shrill) sound and constant (I don’t know a word to describe this, as opposed to sharp piano notes) do a better job of adding emphasis to something or inspiring awe. Constant notes mean ambiance, solely shrill, fast notes mean attention.

If you think I’m having a go at you, you would be damn right. You are accusing Pope St Pius X of being some kind of idiot who wouldn’t put the slightest bit of thought into his writings, meanwhile you interpret what he says in an intentionally and unnecessarily strict way. A certain heretic group may very well associate themselves with him, but he is a pope and a saint, and you will respect him as such.

You mentioned cultural norms, my reply was to explain the proper use of cultural norms. You were able to notice that, you are only trying to draw my own reply out of context to take attention away from your own blooper. Be honest and sincere. If you have some form of aversion to St Pius, admit it. If you make a mistake in interpreting something wrongly, admit it also instead of dragging it out into a stupid argument.

For the sake of my blood pressure I am unsubscribing to your replies.

You’ve unsubscribed anyway, so this is probably a pointless response, but I want to be clear on one thing. My posts actually had absolutely nothing with an aversion to Pope Pius. I’m actually relatively neutral in that respect. My response had everything to do with what I was reading within the document.

Also, be honest with yourself. If you go back and read your posts, I think you will find that rather than just point out that I might be interpreting something too literally, you had sarcasm and antagonistic language in all of your posts to me. This is probably a result of you assuming that I was attacking Pope Pius.